The law went into effect in early August, forcing some agencies to stockpile weapons they used to scrap as they try to establish agreements with federally licensed firearms dealers.

It raises questions about what police can do with weapons collected through gun buyback programs such as one that happened Tuesday in Tucson, Ariz., on the two-year anniversary of the mass shooting that killed six and wounded 12 others including then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz. Residents turned in 206 guns and received $50 grocery gift cards for each of them, according to The Associated Press.

Police and the city councilman who proposed the buyback, Steve Kozachik, intend to destroy the weapons.

The law also raises broader policy questions about whether putting weapons back into circulation makes good public-safety sense.

The law was the result of a years-long effort to establish a uniform statewide police policy on the disposal of weapons collected through forfeiture cases in which the weapon is surrendered to authorities via a court order after the owner is convicted of a felony in which a deadly weapon was used.

State law previously attempted to mandate the sale of confiscated weapons, but it allowed Arizona cities and towns to turn their own police policies into municipal ordinances requiring the destruction of seized weapons.

Phoenix has collected more than 180 forfeited weapons since the law took effect, and police are storing them until city officials can find a vendor to whom the department can trade or sell the weapons.

The Arizona Citizens Defense League, a Tucson-based nonprofit organization that advocates for gun rights, supported the bill. The group's spokesman, Charles Heller, cites several reasons to support the notion that Arizona cities and towns cannot make their own decisions about the disposal of forfeited weapons.

Destroying perfectly good weapons is a waste of resources that could benefit taxpayers, Heller said. He also noted that Arizona cities are not allowed to create their own ordinances when it comes to other weapons regulations.

Ultimately, destroying forfeited weapons does nothing to make a community safer, Heller said.

"It's a (self-gratifying) process, thinking if you take a gun out of circulation that isn't being used, it will affect crime," Heller said. "(The law) is in part addressing waste by government. It's also addressing intent to do something inane."

Yet some current and former law-enforcement officers worry that the law forces police to put weapons back on the streets in communities where guns are already in abundant supply, and removes the latitude to make what should be a local decision. What works in Springerville, Ariz., population 2,000, might not be appropriate in south Phoenix, part of a metro area of 4.3 million people.

Phoenix Councilman Michael Johnson, a former homicide detective whose district includes areas that have traditionally struggled with gun violence, said he wants Phoenix police to continue destroying weapons if that is what administrators believe is best.

"Certainly, from being a law-enforcement officer, and having the opportunity to investigate homicides and robberies and crimes involving the use of weapons, I'm just a firm believer that the more ability people have (to get a gun), the more opportunity it provides for them to have a violent encounter with a weapon," Johnson said.

Little opposition

The bill prohibiting weapon destruction went through the state Legislature without much opposition.

At a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee in January 2012, the League of Arizona Cities and Towns expressed nominal opposition on the record, but no one spoke against the proposal.

Ken Strobeck, the league's executive director, was unaware the bill passed until a reporter contacted him.

"We're not opposing the sale of weapons," Strobeck said, but he added that the group is opposed to the one-size-fits-all approach the law enacted.

"We felt like it was an imposition on a decision that should have been made at the city level, as to how we wanted to deal with them," Strobeck said. "We didn't think it was appropriate to insist that all forfeited weapons be returned to the public."

A member of the Citizens Defense League told the Senate Judiciary Committee last year that local agencies were "leaving money on the table" by not selling the weapons.

Heller could provide no estimate of how much the bill could save taxpayers, nor could any law-enforcement agency that now trades weapons or is preparing to do so.

Arizona's House minority leader, Phoenix Democrat Chad Campbell, said he plans to introduce a proposal to repeal the bill.

"There's no significant gain to the taxpayer whatsoever. I don't believe that for a second," Campbell said. "Local agencies should be able to do what they want with any type of weapon law enforcement confiscates."

Awaiting court orders

Mesa, Ariz., police say they destroy most weapons the agency receives through forfeiture. The department's legal advisers focused on language in the legislation that requires a court order to sell the weapon, said Detective Steve Berry, a department spokesman.

"Although the legislation has changed on this issue, our policy has not changed," Berry said. "If we received a specific court order to sell a gun, then we would comply and do so. Barring any court order, we will continue to dispose of them as we have in the past."

The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office has had a policy in place allowing the agency to sell or trade forfeited weapons, but it has not been the practice to do so. No forfeited weapons have been traded for at least 10 years, Deputy Chief Jack MacIntyre said.

More than 1,500 weapons have accumulated through the years, and MacIntyre said the agency is processing each gun now to determine which are eligible to hand over to licensed firearms dealers.

The agency, like others, will not sell or trade fully automatic weapons or those that have been modified, such as a sawed-off shotgun. MacIntyre said administrators also are reluctant to put cheap or poorly constructed weapons on the market.

"They have to have some appreciable value that would make them less likely to fall into the hands of the average street hood," MacIntyre said. "The destruction of anything that is remotely suspect or looks cheap or has marginal market value and therefore minimal resale value is really a policy decision by the office. I don't think it's mandated by the legislation."

The bill's supporters likely would differ with the Sheriff's Office's point of view, which is exactly the problem with the legislation, Campbell said.

"If an agency wants to put them back on the street, that's great," he said. "If they feel there's a need not to put them back on the street, they should be able to do that."

In Tucson, Sgt. Maria Hawke said her department would not have to sell any weapons received through Tuesday's buyback because the guns technically were not forfeited and so would not be subject to the new law.

Heller, the Citizens Defense League spokesman, disagreed, pointing to another statute that defines "property" as goods that have been abandoned or unclaimed.